This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 09 December 2014, At: 15:44Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of College Reading andLearningPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucrl20

Underprepared CollegeStudents' Perceptions ofReading: Are Their PerceptionsDifferent than other Students?Linda Saumell, Marie Tejero Hughes & Kay LopatePublished online: 08 Jul 2014.

To cite this article: Linda Saumell, Marie Tejero Hughes & Kay Lopate (1999)Underprepared College Students' Perceptions of Reading: Are Their PerceptionsDifferent than other Students?, Journal of College Reading and Learning, 29:2,123-135, DOI: 10.1080/10790195.1999.10850074

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10790195.1999.10850074

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:44

09

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Linda Saumell, Marie'Iejero Hughes, andKay LopateUnderpreparedCollege Students'Perceptions ofReading: AreTheir PerceptionsDifferent thanOther Students?

The purpose of this study was to examine a broad spectrum ofcollege stu­dents' understanding of reading to determine whether a distinct differenceexists in this understanding between "underprepared' or "at-risk"studentsand other college students. The 102 college students fell into three groups:students enrolled in a community college skills-based reading course, stu­dents enrolled in a university strategy-based reading class, and successfulupper division university students. Students responded in writing to 2 ques­tions about reading, and their responses were analyzed using a qualitativeapproach. Students oflower ability characterized good readers as those whoread quickly and often, and they characterized the reading process as apassive activity. More capable readers viewed reading as an interactiveprocess and a good reader as one who comprehends the author's message.

COllege students identified by theirinstitution as underprepared or at-risk are often enrolled in manda­tory reading courses. Such courses can be classified by their focus asskills-based or strategy-based. Skills-based courses follow a diagnostic­compensatory model in which students are given a reading test andthen placed in one of several levels of reading courses in which

College Students' Perceptions 123

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:44

09

Dec

embe

r 20

14

124 [ournal ofCollege Reading and Learning, 29 (2), Spring 1999

remediation and isolated practice of specific skills is the primary focusofinstruction. In contrast, strategy-based reading courses focus on teach­ing students reading and study strategies to help them learn and retaininformation from college textbooks and lectures. Reading courses ofboth types succeed to varying degrees. Students in skills-based classesmay master the skills taught to the degree required to exit the class,but still not be successful in applying these skills to their college read­ing (Saumell & Hughes, 1996; Grant & Hoeber, 1978). Students in strat­egy-based classes may be able to perform the required strategies in amanner that is acceptable to their reading instructor, but not transferthose strategies to their college coursework (Saumell, 1994a; Nist &Simpson, 1994). In either case, many students in these classes havedeveloped a level of "mechanical" expertise, but have not capitalizedon this growth by achieving "functional" expertise. Thus they have notreaped the intended benefit of the instruction, becoming "good read­ers" (Saumell, 1994b; Saumell & Hughes, 1997).

Having taught both underprepared and general college students, wewondered whether some of the success, or lack thereof, might not berelated to factors other than the learning ofspecific skills or strategies.For example, the students' perceptions of reading and their ideas ofwhat it means to be a good reader might influence their decisions aboutthe way they will perform certain reading tasks. The idea that stu­dents' perceptions are important mediators oflearning has been incor­porated into many general cognitive and psychological theories andmodels (e.g., Anderson, 1985;Ausubel, 1968; Brown, Bransford, Ferrera& Campione, 1983; McKeachie, Pintrich, Lin, Smith, & Sharma, 1986).Further evidence of the importance of students' perceptions of learn­ing maybe found in the work of researchers (e.g., Dweck, 1986; Dweck& Elliott, 1983; Nist & Simpson, 1994) who have argued that a student'sperceptions of learning may effect his or her motivation and generalapproach to completing a task. While the aforementioned studies fo­cused on the learning process in general, these ideas have been ex­tended to the reading process. Research in reading has also suggested

Linda Saumell, Ph.D. received her doctoral degreein reading and learning disabilitiesfrom the University ofMiami. She is presently the AssistantAthletic Director/DirectorofAcademic Services for student athletes at the University of Miami and teachesclasses in collegereading. Marie Tejera Hughes, Ph.D. is a research assistantprofessorat the University of Miami. Her research interests include reading, learningdisabilities, and parental involvement. She received her doctoral degree from theUniversity ofMiami in reading and learning disabilities. Kay Lopate, Ph.D. receivedher doctorate in Reading and Learning Disabilities from the University ofMiami.She is the director ofthe Reading and Study Skills Center at the University ofMiamiand teaches developmental reading course.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:44

09

Dec

embe

r 20

14

College Students' Perceptions 125

that readers' perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes about themselves andtheir ability to enact strategies while reading, play an important role inthe reading process (Valencia, Pearson, Peters, & Wixson, 1989; Valen­cia & Pearson, 1987).

While there has been a paucity of research in the area ofperceptionsof reading among college learners, evidence gathered in studies of adultreaders suggests that their perceptions of reading influence their read­ing behaviors (Smith, 1990). Additional studies with adults have indi­cated that these perceptions are heavily influenced by the level of edu­cation the individual has attained (Smith, 1990; DeFord, 1985; Meyer& Keefe, 1985). Of particular interest to this study is the notion thatmore educated individuals perceive reading as a meaning getting proc­ess, citing comprehension and inferential skills as the most importantskills in reading, while less educated individuals cited vocabulary andvisual ability as the most important skills (Smith, 1990).

An earlier study was conducted to explore the impact of college stu­dents' perceptions of leamer, task, and strategy variables on strategytransfer (Saumell, 1994a, 1994b). The findings suggested that students'perceptions of both themselves as learners and their ability to performthe skills required by a strategy played a greater role in their decisionto use a strategy than actual expertise in implementing the strategy.How these students defined the task to be undertaken in combinationwith their view of themselves as learners provided an interesting win­dow on what they chose to do to complete the task. Based on this, wetheorized that students' perceptions ofwhat reading is and what makessomeone a good reader might be an important issue for college read­ing instructors to consider. The purpose of this study was to examinethese issues and investigate whether differences exist in the percep­tion of what reading is and what it means to be a good reader amongstudents of varying reading backgrounds.

Method

Participants

The participants in this study were 102 college students attendingeither a large community college or a private university in the south­eastern United States. The first of three groups consisted of 34 commu­nity college students enrolled in a pre-college skills-based readingcourse. Because the community college's placement test scores indi­cated that these students were reading below the lOth-grade level, thestudents were required to enroll in a skills-based reading course priorto taking college-level courses. The course aimed to help students im-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:44

09

Dec

embe

r 20

14

126 Journal ofCollegeReading and Learning, 29 (2), Spring 1999

prove their reading comprehension and vocabulary skills. Instructionfocused on the teaching of a number of reading skills including formu­lating main ideas, identifying details, drawing conclusions, makinginferences, recognizing author's tone, evaluating bias, and developingvocabulary. The second group was comprised of 41 students requiredto enroll in a university strategy-based reading class. The course aimedto familiarize students with interactive reading strategies that wouldassist them in coping with the demands of college textbooks. Studentsreceived instruction in a series of interactive reading strategies:prereading, elaboration, organization, notetaking, cooperative learn­ing, and time management. Although the reading level of these stu­dents was deemed adequate for the demands of college reading, theywere considered at-risk by the university due to low Scholastic Apti­tude Test (SAT) verbal scores or low high school grade point averages.The third group included 27 upper division university students whoresponded to a request for volunteers with a grade point average of 3.0or better to participate in the study. All students who volunteered weredeemed academically successful by the researchers after reviewing thestudents' academic records.

Procedures

Students enrolled in the reading classes were invited to participatein the study, and responses were collected during the beginning of thesemester. All participants responded in writing to 2 questions: (a) Whatis reading? and (b) What does it mean to be a good reader?

Data Analysis

A qualitative approach, based on procedures recommended by Lin­coln and Guba (1989), was used to explore the student responses. Foreach question, student responses were read and salient informationalphrases and sentences identified. 'IWo researchers independently sortedthese phrases and sentences into categories consisting of units withsimilar content. Categories were named and rules for belonging in thecategory were developed. The two researchers then met to compareand negotiate the individually created categories. Through this nego­tiation process, a final set of categories was developed and then re­viewed for interrelationship among categories, overlap, and complete­ness. Categories were subdivided or collapsed as needed during thisprocess. Responses in each category were counted and percentages ofrespondents for each group computed.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:44

09

Dec

embe

r 20

14

College Students' Perceptions 127

Results

Several categories emerged when students' responses were analyzedto determine how students perceive reading. Most commonly, studentsdescribed reading as the ability to comprehend the written word. Stu­dents also described what they felt were characteristics of good read­ers. Students' responses fell into several categories, with the most fre­quent description of a good reader including the ability to understandthe message the author is conveying. Tables 1 and 2 depict the catego­ries that most frequently emerged from the data and the percentage ofstudents from each group including that category in their response.Percentages total more than 100 for each group because some responsesincorporated several ideas and thus required coding in more than onecategory. Findings for each question are discussed below and relevantstudent quotations are included.

What is Reading?Reading is comprehending. The most common response students

provided was that reading is the ability to comprehend what is written.This category was either the first or second most frequently mentioneddescription for all three groups of students. As two of the communitycollege reading students stated, "reading is when you read somethingand you understand it" and "when you read something and try to un­derstand it." University reading students also focused on the impor­tance of comprehending and made statements such as, "reading is un­derstanding material" and "reading is looking at and understanding themeaning of groups of words when they are put together. II Successfulupper division students also associated reading with comprehension,as exemplified in this student's comment: "When reading you must getan understanding of what is being said."

Reading helps you learn. All three groups of students also fre­quently descnbed reading as a way of learning new information. Asone community college student stated, "Without reading there's nolearning about anything you would want to know. II University readingstudents also strongly equated reading with learning. One student re- .sponded that reading was a form of learning: "What you read suppos­edly soaks up in your knowledge...[and] lets you find out stuff that youhave never known." Another university reading student said readingwas "a kind of communication in which you can learn and acquireknowledge. II Upper division students were also in agreement with theother two groups regarding the association between reading and learn­ing, as exemplified by one student who remarked that reading is "be-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:44

09

Dec

embe

r 20

14

128 Journal of CollegeReading and Learning, 29 (2), Spring 1999

ing able to look at and recite what it is written and also learning fromthe work."

Table 1

Percentage ofStudents Responding by Category to the Question"What is reading?"

Category Community College University Upper divisionn = 34 n = 41 n = 27

Comprehending 30 25 42

Learning 39 32 34

Words 24 25 30

Escaping/Enjoyment 5 25 12

Active Process 0 10 34

Disengaged Process 06 13 08

'Illble 2

Percentage ofStudents Responding by Category to the Question,"What is a good reader?"

Category Community College University Upper divisionn = 34 n = 41 n = 27

Comprehend theauthor's message 39 25 86

Reading rapidly 62 15 24

Self-monitors 27 50 34

Actively Engaged 18 53 27

Reads frequently 27 13 0

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:44

09

Dec

embe

r 20

14

College Students'Perceptions 129

Reading is words. Many of the students defined reading as a seriesof letters and words. This description of reading was provided by atleast a quarter of all students in each of the groups. A community col­lege reading student indicated that to him reading was " looking at abunch of letters all crumbled up. Reading could get exciting if it hadpictures in the book. Whenever I start to read a long book I usually fallasleep." Other students used phrases such as "being able to look atwords," and "the art of looking at many letters which make up words."Although some students focused on the word level, the majority ofthethose students extended this idea to include the notion that these writ­ten words can provide knowledge, as this university reading studentdid: "Reading is going through a bunch of words to get further knowl­edge on a subject."

Reading is for enjoyment or escape. Few students associated read­ing with enjoyment or escape. University reading students were theones who most often thought of reading as an enjoyable activity. Uni­versity students were most likely to talk about reading as entertain­ment or escape. One university reading student stated it this way: "Iblots of people reading is a sort of way to escape from reality or forgettheir problems." Another university student said, "Reading is imagina­tion. It is a different world. It is like a movie, but the reader gets topicture the colors, the atmosphere, the climate, and the people."

Reading is an active process. Academically successful upper divi­sion students differentiated themselves from the other groups with overa third responding that reading is an active process. This is in contrastto the college reading students where none of them provided this re­sponse. Many of the university students made statements such as, "read­ing is the process in which written words and other information seenwith the eyes are processed in the brain." While other students took ita step further: "Reading is the visual (or physical Braille) intake of in­formation from printed material. Nonprinted material can be read suchas reading a person's expression. No matter what is being read it in­volves some form of intake, interpretation, or translation of what isbeing read, and processing this information for future use."

Disengaged process. A small groups of students across all threegroups viewed reading as a disengaging process, where the reader isnot involved in the process of reading other than looking at the words.Students who provided this response made statements such as, "Read­ing is just looking at the pages and seeing the words," and "Reading isopening the book and turning the pages as your eyes go back and forth."

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:44

09

Dec

embe

r 20

14

130 Journal ofCollegeReading and Learning, 29 (2), Spring 1999

What is a Good Reader?Comprehend the message. A good reader understands the mes­

sage the author is conveying. Upper division university students over­whelmingly used this characteristic to describe good readers. A typicalresponse was "someone who is able to understand and comprehendwhat they have read." He or she should be able to give a briefsummaryofwhat was learned." The other two groups ofstudents frequently men­tioned it, but it was not their most frequent response. A communitycollege reading student described it this way: "to be able to compre­hend and understand what you're reading about. If one cannot be ableto do this then that person is not considered as a good reader. Onemust also know what the main idea of the reading is about, not tomention what the whole story is about." University reading studentsalso focused on the ability to understand what is read and used phrasessuch as "good readers comprehend" and "try to understand everything.'

Reading rapidly, Unlike the other two groups, community collegereading students put much emphasis on the ability to read rapidly. Asone student stated, "Ib be able to read at fast speed. Not having prob­lems reading. Ifyou are reading in class, to be able to keep up with theothers." Another student expressed it this way: "Io be able to read abook as fast as possible and understand the book. Be able to read atleast 400 words per minute.' Students in the other groups placed muchless emphasis on reading speed. When students in other groups didcomment on reading speed, they focused more on the ability to adjustreading rate to the task at hand.

Self-monitors. Students also associated good readers with the abil­ity to monitor comprehension and use fix-up strategies while reading.University students stated this characteristic most often. "If a goodreader gets stuck in something that they don't understand," wrote oneuniversity student, "they will figure it out and take the time to look itup.' An upper division student remarked, "They read when it'sappropriate-quiet, good lighting, no distractions. If they don't under­stand what they read, then they go over it again."

Actively engaged. A response popular among two groups of stu­dents, university reading students and upper division students, wasthat good readers were actively engaged in their reading. Said one uni­versity student, "Good readers interpret, explain, identify, and lastlychallenge themselves to developing an understanding ofthe material.'Another university reading student focused on the need to reflect whilebeing actively engaged: "Reflect on what they read, make comments,be avid readers, read carefully, read attentively, look up words and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:44

09

Dec

embe

r 20

14

College Students' Perceptions 131

learn how to spell them, read everything during spare time and pull inthoughts from other readings and compare it with present reading. II

An academically successful student worded it this way: "A good readerknows how to find the main idea and has analysis skills, which willimprove study efficiency."

Reads frequently. College reading students as well as some univer­sity reading students equated a good reader with someone who readsfrequently. This response was not provided by any of the upper divi­sion students. A college reading student who characterized a good readeras a frequent reader said, "A good reader is a person who enjoys read­ing constantly. II Another college reading student stated, itAgood readerto me means a person that reads a lot of books. A lot ofbooks that youchoose yourself to read not being told what to read. II

DiscussionThe focus of this investigation was to determine if there is a differ­

ence in perceptions of what reading is and what it means to be a goodreader among students of diverse reading backgrounds. Our findingsrevealed that there were some differences between the three types ofstudents. Students with lower reading abilities tended to characterize agood reader as one who reads quickly and frequently, while more ca­pable readers characterized good readers as those with the ability tounderstand the author's message. In addition, better readers perceivedreading as an interactive process between the reader and the text, whileless accomplished readers viewed reading as a more passive activity.

College students in this study emphasized the need to increase theirreading speed, because they were having difficulty completing all ofthe readings that college courses require. This focus on reading speedwas quite apparent when a majority of college students viewed a goodreader as a person who is able to read quickly. These students' lack ofreading speed was probably more a function of the fact that they werehaving difficulty comprehending what they were reading, and thushad to frequently reread words and paragraphs to make sense of thetext. Increased speed would enable them to read their assignments'more quickly, but not necessarily improve their understanding of thematerial. Increasing reading rate is a short sighted goal on the part ofmany struggling students, which is why instructors need to help stu­dents think about improving their reading more globally with a focuson developing comprehension strategies. Once comprehension im­proves, reading speed may improve as a natural byproduct of thatchange. College instructors need to explain this relationship of readingrate to comprehension to their students.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:44

09

Dec

embe

r 20

14

132 [ournal ofCollege Reading and Learning, 29 (2), Spring 1999

It is not surprising that self-monitoring is viewed as an importantaspect of reading by so many of the students, but in particular by uni­versity reading students. Reading is viewed by this group of studentsas a meaning getting activity. Ostensibly, the reader is learning fromthe text while engaged in the reading process. Self-monitoring is cru­cial to efficient and effective learning because it enables the learner todetermine whether adjustments to the reading strategies need to bemade (Ghatala, 1986). Both Flavell (1977) and Brown (1978) havepointed to self-monitoring as an important construct in intelligentthought that involves predicting, checking, and coordination and con­trol of deliberate attempts to solve problems. This also makes sense inlight of the fact that university reading students view reading as anactive process, suggesting that they implement personal reading strat­egies to facilitate comprehension. Key elements in strategy use arecontrol, planning and deliberate actions on behalf of the learner aswell as monitoring of the effectiveness of their actions.

Findings from this study indicated that upper division students weremore likely to view reading as an activity in which the reader wasactively engaged in an attempt to understand the author's message.The fact that these students had completed at least two more years ofeducation than either of the other two groups of students may haveplayed a factor in their perceptions. Other research has demonstratedthat a person's level of education plays an important role in their per­ceptions of reading (Smith, 1990; DeFord, 1985; Meyer & Keefe, 1985)and that more educated individuals perceive reading as a meaning get­ting process (Smith, 1990). This may be a shift in perception that oc­curs during the college career of students.

The findings of this investigation suggest the potential utility of ex­ploring some alternative practices in the provision of reading instruc­tion for college students. If it is believed that student perceptions ofreading influence the likelihood ofreading improvement from instruc­tion, then student assessment must be broadened to include instru­ments that are sensitive to the issue of student perceptions. Winograd,Paris and Bridge (1991) have argued that "improving assessment is themost difficult task facing those interested in educational reform" (p.108).However, improving assessment is worth the effort because it may re­sult in positive changes in the outcome of college reading instruction.Simpson and Nist (1992) have posed a comprehensive assessment modelfor college level reading and learning. Their model includes studentparticipation in the assessment process: "Students are involved in theirown diagnosis as well as in the evaluation of whether they accomplishshort- and long- term programmatic goals" (p. 453). One way to initiate

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:44

09

Dec

embe

r 20

14

College Students' Perceptions 133

self-diagnosis and ongoing monitoring of goals is through assessmentportfolios.

If students' perceptions are found to be counterproductive to read­ing improvement, then instructional techniques that incorporate waysof considering these perceptions must be developed. Methods of im­proving student reading may lie in the use of instructional techniquessuch as scaffolded learning (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988) or learning dyads(Dansereau, 1988). Both of these techniques can be used to facilitateexpert to novice modeling (Bandura, 1971; Palinscar, 1986) of skillssuch as question generation, isolation of important information fromtext, or the understanding ofthe hierarchical relationships among con­cepts in a particular reading selection. These techniques not only im­prove student skill levels in these important areas, but also may facili­tate subtle shifts in reading perceptions that are more conducive togeneral reading improvement.

1b help students understand their own perceptions of reading, theuse of journal writing (Cohen, 1983; Mealy, 1990) maybe an effectivetool for use in the college reading classroom. Responses to journalsmay also provide a format for altering perceptions ofreading that wouldinterfere with improvement.

Although this study appears to suggest that students of varying read­ing levels have different perceptions of reading, a limitation should beconsidered in interpreting these findings. The focus of the study wason students' perceptions, and the self-report data may pull for moresocially acceptable answers. Although students were assured that re­sponses would not impact their course grades, the perceptions expressedmay not provide an accurate representation of the students' percep­tions due to a desire to reflect what they believed were the instructor'sperceptions of reading. There is a need for further exploration of therole of students' perceptions in the outcome ofcollege reading instruc­tion. The goal of this study was to examine students' perceptions andgain insights into how those perceptions relate to their present readingneeds. Future research should examine the relationship of these ideasto reading performance at various levels and also evaluate their im- .pact on instruction.

ReferencesAnderson, J. R. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: W. H.

Freedman.Ausubel, D. P.(1968). Educational psychology:A cognitiveview.New York:Holt, Rinehart

and Winston.Bandura, A. (Ed.) (1971). Psychological modding: Conflicting theories. Chicago:

AldineAtherton.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:44

09

Dec

embe

r 20

14

134 Journal ofCollegeReading and Learning, 29 (2), Spring 1999

Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing, when, where, and how to remember: A problem ofmetacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 77-165).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning,remembering, and understanding. In J. Flavell & E. Mankman (Eds.), Handbook ofchildpsychology (Vol. 3, pp. 77-166). New York: Wiley.

Cohen, M. L. (1983, April). Listening to students' voices: What university studentstell us about how they learn. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association. Atlanta, GA. (Eric Document Reproduction ServiceNo. ED 359237).

Dansereau, D. F. (1988). Cooperative learning strategies. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T.Goetz, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, in­struction, and evaluation (pp. 103-120). New York: Academic Press.

DeFord, D. E. (1985). Validating the construct of theoretical orientation in readinginstruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 351-367.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Mental processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41,1040-1048.

Dweck, C. S., & Elliott, E. S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.),Handbook ofchild psychology (Vol. 4. pp. 643-691) New York: Wiley.

Flavell, J. H. (1977). Cognitive development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Ghatala, E. S. (1986). Strategy-monitoring training enables young learners to select

effective strategies. Educational Psychologist, 21, 43-54.Grant, M. K., & Hoeber, D. R. (1978). Basic skills programs: Are they working? Washing­

ton: American Association for Higher Education.Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1989). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R., Lin, Y., Smith, D. A., & Sharma, R. (1986). 'leaching

and learning in the coUege classroom: A review of the research literature (2nd ed). (Techni­cal Report No. 90-B-003.1). Ann Arbor, MI: NCRIPTAL, Regents of the University ofMichigan.

Mealy, D. L. (1990). Understanding the motivation problems of at-risk college stu­dents. Journal ofReading, 34, 599-60l.

Meyer, V., & Keefe, V. (1985). Models of the reading process held by ABE and GEDinstructors. Reading Horizons, 25, 133-136.

Nist, S. L., & Simpson, M. L. (1994). Why strategies fail: Students' and researchers'perceptions. In C. K. Kinzer & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Multidimensional aspects ofliteracy re­search, theory, and practice (pp. 287-295) Chicago: National Reading Conference.

Palinscar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Edu­cational Psychologist, 21, 73-98.

Saumell, L. (1994a). Collegedevelopmental reading students' perceptions ofreading studystrategies: Implications for transfer to other context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.University of Miami, Coral Gables.

Saumell, L. (1994b). Collegedevelopmental reading students'perceptions ofreading/studystrategies. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Di­ego, CA.

Saumell, L., & Hughes, M. T. (1996). The effects of reading instruction on college stu­dents' perceptions ofreading. Presented at American Reading Forum Conference, Sanibel,FL.

Saumell, L., & Hughes, M. T. (1997). The impact ofa strategy-based reading class onstudents' attitudes and motivation for learning. Presented at College Reading AssociationConference. Boston.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:44

09

Dec

embe

r 20

14

College Students' Perceptions 135

Simpson, M. L., &' Nist, S. L. (1992). Toward defining a comprehensiveassessment model for college reading. Journal ofReading, 35, 452-458.Smith, M. C. (1990). Reading habits and attitudes of adults at different levels of edu­

cation and occupation. Reading Research and Instruction, 30(1), SO-58.Tharp, R. G., &' Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and

schooling in social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Valencia, S., Pearson, P. D., Peters, C., &' Wixson, K. (1989). Theory and practice in

statewide reading assessment: Closing the gap. Educational Leadership, 46, 57"63.Valencia S., &' Pearson, P. D. (1987). Reading assessment: Time for a change. The

Reading Thacher, 42,108-117.Winograd, P., Paris, S., &' Bridge, C. (1991). Improving the assessment of literacy. The

Reading Thacher, 45, 108-117.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

5:44

09

Dec

embe

r 20

14